Evidence to support the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Single-Center 10-Year Experience of Low Versus High-Dose Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

While neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is considered the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, the optimal radiation dosing remains undefined. We aimed to assess the perioperative and long-term outcomes comparing patients treated with low-dose (LD-RT) versus high-dose (HD-RT) radiation therapy.

METHODS

Our institutional database was queried for patients with cT2-T4 or node-positive esophageal or GEJ cancer, who underwent surgery with neoadjuvant chemoradiation from 2010 through 2019. LD-RT and HD-RT regimens were defined as receiving total radiation dose ≤45 Gy and ≥50 Gy, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox proportional hazard modeling, and logistical regression were utilized for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 287 patients were identified: 77 (27%) received LD-RT; 210 (73%) received HD-RT. Median follow-up from diagnosis to death or last contact was 37.1 months for the study cohort. Older age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.03/year, p = 0.02) and year of diagnosis (OR 0.77/year, p < 0.001) were independently associated with receipt of HD-RT relative to LD-RT. Compared with HD-RT, LD-RT was associated with improved 5 year overall survival (OS; 55.1 vs. 44.1%, p = 0.03). On multivariate hazard modeling, receipt of HD-RT was independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.79, 95% 1.19-2.68, p = 0.005), disease-free survival (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-2.88, p = 0.02), and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11-2.55, p = 0.01) compared with those treated with LD-RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite less frequent utilization than HD-RT strategies, LD-RT is associated with improved survival in those treated with neoadjuvant CRT for esophageal or GEJ cancer.

Survival comparison between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy for node-negative esophageal squamous cell cancer: an ambispective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether there is a survival difference between open esophagectomy (OE) and thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for esophageal cancer (EC). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the differences in survival and safety between two surgical approaches in patients with node-negative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

This ambispective cohort study included 1104 patients with node-negative ESCC who received OE or TE treatment at a Grate-A tertiary hospital in Henan Province between January 2015 and December 2016. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoint was surgical safety. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the effect of surgical approaches on OS and DFS, and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to match confounding factors between two groups.

RESULTS

Patients were followed up ranged from 1.03 to 91.60 months, with a median follow-up time of 67.37 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed statistically significant differences between OE and TE in OS (70.05% vs 83.73%, P < 0.001) and DFS (67.15% vs 77.76%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, multivariate Cox regression analysis also demonstrated significant differences in long-term survival between the two groups (OS, HR (95% CI): 0.54 (0.41, 0.70); DFS, HR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.54, 0.86)). TE was associated with a reduction in intraoperative bleeding (median: 100 ml vs. 200 ml, P < 0.001), and an increase in the number of lymph nodes dissection (median: 23 vs. 28, P < 0.001). Similar results were found after PSM.

CONCLUSION

In a selected cohort of patients with node-negative ESCC, TE surgical treatment was safer and had better long-term survival outcomes compared to OE. This provided corresponding clinical guidance to enhance survival benefits for patients. In the future, we hope to further explore the reasons for TE achieving higher survival rates.

Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in Hybrid and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Regional Russian Cancer Centre Experience

Surgery is pivotal in treating esophageal cancer; hybrid esophagectomy, which combines minimally invasive and open techniques, shows promising outcomes. This historical cohort study compared the surgical outcomes of standard open esophagectomy with hybrid esophagectomy. Overall, 58 patients who underwent either hybrid or open esophagectomy at the Ulyanovsk Regional Clinical Oncology Clinic, Russia, from January 2015 to December 2023 were included. Data on demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. The primary measures were overall complications and anastomotic leakage rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's Chi square test and t test via StatTech software (version 2.8.8). The number of removed lymph nodes was higher in the hybrid group (24±9) than in the open group (15±7) (P<0.001). In addition, the hybrid esophagectomy group showed significant reductions in operational time and blood loss (P<0.001 and P=0.014, respectively). The need for blood transfusion was higher in the open esophagectomy group (P=0.043). The postoperative length of stay in the hospital did not differ significantly between the two groups (open=20±8 days, hybrid=17±7 days, P=0.178). Cardiac complications were more frequent after an open esophagectomy (P=0.044). Hybrid esophagectomy reduced postoperative cardiac complications and other adverse events while maintaining satisfactory oncological outcomes. It had advantages over standard open esophagectomy in terms of lymphadenectomy, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion requirements, suggesting its efficacy for esophageal cancer patients.

[Evidence for Minimal Invasive Oesophageal Resection]

In the course of the last 20 years, minimally invasive therapy has become much more important in all areas. In particular, surgical procedures have been established in oncological surgery, even without generating the necessary evidence to assure that the quality is equal to that achieved with open procedures. For this purpose, it has only been in recent years that appropriate randomised controlled studies followed by meta-analyses have been carried out. In this article, we summarise the evidence for minimally invasive resection of the oesophagus and review current literature for each procedure.

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Is Safe and Cost Equivalent Compared to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Referral Center

In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.

Is laparoscope surgery feasible for upper gastrointestinal cancer patients with a history of abdominal surgery?

Objective

To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic abdominal mobilization in patients with cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who have a history of abdominal surgery.

Methods

A total of 132 patients who underwent resection for cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction from August 2018 to March 2022 in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, were selected (66 patients with a history of abdominal surgery (observation group) and 66 patients without a history of abdominal surgery (control group)). All patients were treated with preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, based on the clinical stage. Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic resection was performed under general anesthesia. The intraoperative and postoperative conditions and surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

No significant differences were found in baseline data between the observation group and the control group (p > 0.05). Laparoscopic abdominal mobilization was completed in both groups, and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the total operation time [(272.50 ± 86.45) min vs. (257.55 ± 67.96) min], abdominal mobilization time [(25.03 ± 9.82) min vs. (22.53 ± 3.88) min], blood loss [(119.09 ± 72.17) ml vs. (104.39 ± 43.82) ml], and postoperative time to first flatus [(3.44 ± 0.73) d vs. (3.29 ± 0.60) d] (p > 0.05). The abdominal mobilization time was longer in observation group than that in control group (p = 0.057). After excluding the patients (31/66) with a history of simple appendectomy from the observation group, the abdominal mobilization time was significantly longer in observation group than that in control group [(27.97 ± 12.16) min vs. (22.53 ± 3.88) min] (p < 0.05). There were significantly fewer dissected abdominal lymph nodes in the observation group than in the control group [(18.44 ± 10.87) vs. (23.09 ± 10.95), p < 0.05]. After excluding the patients (15/66) with a history of abdominal tumor surgery from the observation group, there was no significant difference in the number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes between the two groups [(20.62 ± 10.81) vs. (23.09 ± 10.95)] (p > 0.05).In addition, no postoperative complications, such as intestinal obstruction, abdominal infection and bleeding, occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Patients with cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who have a history of abdominal surgery are suitable for minimally invasive laparoscopic mobilization.

Efficacy and complications of single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center experience

The traditional surgical technique for esophageal cancer is mainly open esophagectomy. With the innovation of surgical instruments, it is necessary to re-optimize the minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (SPTE) is an important direction of development. This study retrospectively analyzed 202 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing SPTE. Surgical variables and postoperative complications were further evaluated. All procedures were performed using SPTE. The number of patients who received R0 resection was 201 (99.5%). The total number of resected lymph nodes during the whole operation was on average 32.01 ± 12.15, and the mean number of positive lymph nodes was 1.56 ± 2.51. In 170 cases (84.2%), intraoperative blood loss did not exceed 100 ml (ml), while 1 case had postoperative bleeding. Only 1 patient (0.5%) required reoperation after surgery. Postoperative complications included 42 cases of pneumonia (20.8%), 9 cases of anastomotic leak (4.5%), 7 cases of pleural effusion (3.8%), and 1 case (0.5%) of both pleural hemorrhage and acute gastrointestinal hemorrhagic ulcer. Besides, we also recorded the time to remove the drain tube, which averaged 9.13 ± 5.31 days. In our study, we confirmed that the application of SPTE in clinical practice is feasible, and that the postoperative complications are at a low level.

Exploring the learning curve in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been shown to be superior to open esophagectomy with reduced morbidity, mortality, and comparable lymph node (LN) harvest. However, MIE is technically challenging. This study aims to perform a pooled analysis on the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve (LC), i.e. NLC in MIE. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles that reported LC in video-assisted MIE (VAMIE) and/or robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE). Poisson means (95% confidence interval [CI]) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used for comparative analysis. There were 41 articles with 45 data sets (n = 7755 patients). The majority of tumors were located in the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (66.7%, n = 3962/5939). The majority of data sets on VAMIE (n = 16/26, 61.5%) used arbitrary analysis, while the majority of data sets (n = 14/19, 73.7%) on RAMIE used cumulative sum control chart analysis. The most common outcomes reported were overall operating time (n = 30/45) and anastomotic leak (n = 28/45). Twenty-four data sets (53.3%) reported on LN harvest. The overall NLC was 34.6 (95% CI: 30.4-39.2), 68.5 (95% CI: 64.9-72.4), 27.5 (95% CI: 24.3-30.9), and 35.9 (95% CI: 32.1-40.2) for hybrid VAMIE, total VAMIE, hybrid RAMIE, and total RAMIE, respectively. NLC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting NLC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.

Survival Comparison Between Open and Thoracoscopic Upfront Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The survival outcomes of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after open or thoracoscopic upfront esophagectomy remained unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare overall survival between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy for ESCC patients without neoadjuvant chemodatiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

The Taiwan Cancer Registry was investigated for ESCC cases from 2008 to 2016. We enrolled 2053 ESCC patients receiving open (n = 645) or thoracoscopic (n = 1408) upfront esophagectomy. One-to-two propensity score matching between the two groups was performed. Stage-specific survival was compared before and after propensity score matching. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

After one-to-two propensity score matching, a total of 1299 ESCC patients with comparable clinic-pathologic features were identified. There were 433 patients in the open group and 866 patients in the thoracoscopic group. The 3-year overall survival of matched patients in the thoracoscopic group was better than that of matched patients in the open group (58.58% vs 47.62%, P = 0.0002). Stage-specific comparisons showed thoracoscopic esophagectomy is associated with better survival than open esophagectomy in patients with pathologic I/II ESCC. In multivariate analysis, surgical approach was still an independent prognostic factor before and after one-to-two propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

This propensity-matched study revealed that thoracoscopic esophagectomy could provide better survival than open esophagectomy in ESCC patients without neoadjuvant CRT.

Anti-cancer, Anti-collagenase and Anti-elastase Potentials of Some Natural Derivatives: In vitro and in silico Studies

The anti-cancer activities of the compounds were evaluated against KYSE-150, KYSE-30, and KYSE-270 cell lines and also on investigated esophageal line HET 1 A as a standard. Modified inhibitory impact on enzymes of collagenase and elastase were used Thring and Moon methods, respectively. Among both compounds, both of them recorded impact on cancer cells being neutral against the control, both had IC50 lower than 100 µM and acted as a potential anticancer drug. The chemical activities of Skullcapflavone I and Skullcapflavone II against elastase and collagenase were investigated utilizing the molecular modeling study. IC50 values of Skullcapflavone I and Skullcapflavone II on collagenase enzyme were obtained 106.74 and 92.04 µM and for elastase enzyme were 186.70 and 123.52 µM, respectively. Anticancer effects of these compounds on KYSE 150, KYSE 30, and KYSE 270 esophageal cancer cell lines studied in this work. For Skullcapflavone I, IC50 values for these cell lines were obtained 14.25, 19.03, 25.10 µM, respectively. Also, for Skullcapflavone II were recorded 20.42, 34.17, 22.40 µM, respectively. The chemical activities of Skullcapflavone I and Skullcapflavone II against some of the expressed surface receptor proteins (CD44, EGFR, and PPARγ) in the mentioned cell lines were assessed using the molecular docking calculations. The calculations showed the possible interactions and their characteristics at an atomic level.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomies versus open esophagectomies: an umbrella review

Traditionally, esophageal oncological resections have been performed via open approaches with well-documented levels of morbidity and mortality complicating the postoperative course. In contemporary terms, minimally invasive approaches have garnered sustained support in all areas of surgery, and there has been an exponential adaptation of this technology in upper GI surgery with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The current literature, while growing, is inconsistent in reporting on the benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) and this makes it difficult to ascertain best practice. The objective of this review was to critically appraise the current evidence addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MIEs versus open esophagectomies. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching nine electronic databases to identify any systematic reviews published on this topic and recommended Joanna Briggs Institute approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used to report the findings. A total of 13 systematic reviews of moderate to good quality encompassing 143 primary trials and 36,763 patients were included in the final synthesis. Eleven reviews examined safety parameters and found a generalized benefit of MIE. Efficacy was evaluated by eight systematic reviews and found each method to be equivalent. There were limited data to judiciously appraise cost-effectiveness as this was only evaluated in one review involving a single trial. There is improved safety and equivalent efficacy associated with MIE when compared with open esophagectomy. Cost-effectiveness of MIE cannot be sufficiently supported at this point in time. Further studies, especially those focused on cost-effectiveness are needed to strengthen the existing evidence to inform policy makers on feasibility of increased assimilation of this technology into clinical practice.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses, with many limitations, have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.

AIM

To compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) and CENTRAL databases to identify RCTs according to the following population, intervention, control, outcome (commonly known as PICO): P: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer; I/C: Transthoracic, transhiatal, minimally invasive (thoracolaparoscopic), hybrid, and robot-assisted esophagectomy; O: Survival, total adverse events, adverse events in subgroups, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. We used the Bayesian approach and the random effects model. We presented the geometry of the network, results with probabilistic statements, estimated intervention effects and their 95% confidence interval (CI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the interventions.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies in our analysis. We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection, which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery (risk ratio 0.49; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.99). The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery (mean difference -85 min; 95%CI: -150 to -29), hybrid intervention (mean difference -98 min; 95%CI: -190 to -9.4), minimally invasive technique (mean difference -130 min; 95%CI: -210 to -50), and robot-assisted esophagectomy (mean difference -150 min; 95%CI: -240 to -53). Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

This is an invited review for the special edition, “Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cancer: Indications and Outcomes.” Indications to perform minimally invasive techniques for esophagectomy rather than the classic open technique do not exist. This review outlines the current research by comparing outcomes among minimally invasive esophagectomy, robot-assisted esophagectomy, and open esophagectomy. After determining the benefits of each technique in terms of each outcome, the discussion focuses on how surgeons may use the presented information to determine which approach is most appropriate. We hope this study provides a comprehensive review of the current state of the literature regarding minimally invasive esophagectomy, as well as a guide for surgeons who treat patients with esophageal cancer.

Abstract

With the evolution of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), questions remain regarding the benefits and indications of these methods. Given that set indications do not exist, this article aims first to review the reported outcomes of MIE, RAMIE, and open esophagectomy. Then, considerations based on the reported outcomes are discussed to guide surgeons in selecting the best approach. MIE and RAMIE offer the potential to improve outcomes for esophagectomy patients; however, surgeon experience as well as individual patient factors play important roles when deciding upon the surgical approach.

Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Even though minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) is spreading, questions remain regarding its oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of oncological resection criteria in MIE.

METHODS

All patients undergoing a two-way Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a single tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery ward were analyzed retrospectively. The following oncological criteria were analyzed: lymph node (LN) harvest and location, positive lymph node rate, margins, and R0 rates. They were compared between the MIE group (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy) and the hybrid group (H/O, thoracotomy + laparoscopy).

RESULTS

Among the 240 patients included, 34 (14%) had MIE and 206 a hybrid esophagectomy. Main surgical indication was lower thoracic adenocarcinoma and the rate of neoadjuvant treatments administered (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) was comparable between both groups (p = 1.0). LN harvest was significantly higher in the MIE group (31 ± 9 vs. 28 ± 9, p = 0.04) as well as thoracic LN harvest (14 ± 7 vs. 11 ± 5, p = 0.002). When analyzing patients according to T stage and response to neoadjuvant treatments, patients with T1 and T2 tumors and patients with a poor pathological response (TRG3, 4, 5) had a significantly higher LN harvest when undergoing a minimally invasive approach (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Positive LN rates (1.26 ± 3.63 in the MIE group vs. 1.60 ± 2.84 in the H/O group, p = 0.061), R0 rates (97% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.46) as well as proximal (p = 0.083), distal (p = 0.063), and lateral (p = 0.15) margins were comparable between both approaches.

CONCLUSION

MIE seems oncologically safe and may even be better than the open approach in terms of LN harvest especially in patients with T1 and T2 tumors and in poor responders.

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplasms in patients with liver cirrhosis

Background/Aims

The treatment of superficial esophageal neoplasms (SENs) in cirrhotic patients is challenging and rarely investigated. We evaluated the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to determine the efficacy and safety of treating SENs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Methods

The baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients who underwent ESD for SENs between November 2005 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

ESD was performed in 437 patients with 481 SENs, including 15 cirrhotic patients with 17 SENs. En bloc resection (88.2% vs. 97.0%) and curative resection (64.7% vs. 78.9%) rates were not different between the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups (p=0.105 and p=0.224, respectively). Bleeding was more common in cirrhotic patients (p=0.054), and all cases were successfully controlled endoscopically. The median procedure and hospitalization duration did not differ between the groups. Overall survival was lower in cirrhotic patients (p=0.003), while disease-specific survival did not differ between the groups (p=0.85).

Conclusions

ESD could be a safe and effective treatment option for SENs in patients with cirrhosis. Detailed preprocedural assessments are needed, including determination of liver function, esophageal varix status, and remaining life expectancy, to identify patients who will obtain the greatest benefit.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay.

Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay.

Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001).

Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Diabetes Adversely Influences Postoperative Outcomes After Oesophagectomy: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is a recognised risk for several chronic and acute illnesses, including increased complications in surgery for oesophageal cancer. Our primary aim is to determine the impact of diabetes on postoperative surgical and medical complications after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

All oesophagectomies for malignancy as reflected in the 2016-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) datasets were extracted and analysed. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used were 1) open procedures (43107, 43108, 43112, 43113, 43116, 43117, 43118, 43121, 43122, and 43123) and 2) hybrid procedures (43186, 43287, and 43288). Logistic regression models examined associations between diabetic status and adverse outcomes. The associations were adjusted for sex, race, age group, operation year, CPT code, body mass index (BMI), smoking, congestive heart failure, antihypertensives, renal failure, and dyspnoea.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and thirty-eight oesophagectomies were identified. 86.45% (n=2,194) underwent open procedures and 13.55% (n=344) had hybrid procedures. There were 177 insulin-dependent diabetics (IDDM) and 320 (12.61%) non-insulin-dependent diabetics (NIDDM). 84.14% were male and 77.74% were Caucasian. 89.48% of the patients were between 50 and 79 years of age. 40.27% experienced postoperative complications. Medical complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, p-value: 0.002), surgical complications (OR: 1.9, p-value: <0.001), wound complications (OR: 2.9, p-value: <0.001), and anastomotic leaks (OR: 2.4, p-value: <0.001) were more common in diabetic patients. Subgroup analysis showed that in hybrid procedures, there is a statistically significant increase in the OR of surgical complications (OR: 3.61, p-value: 0.05), medical complications (OR: 3.76, p-value: 0.04), and anastomotic leak (OR: 3.49, p-value: 0.27) in IDDM as compared to NIDDM.

CONCLUSION

Insulin-dependent diabetes doubles the risk of all major complications compared to nondiabetics. When considering surgical approach and diabetic status (IDDM vs nondiabetics, NIDDM vs nondiabetics), the risk of complications further doubles for hybrid oesophagectomies compared to open procedures.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Video-assisted mediastinoscopic and laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Mediastinoscopy was originally applied for lymph node biopsy and mediastinal tumor resection. Improved video imaging with spreadable working channels enabled mediastinoscopy for inspection and tissue biopsy in the superior mediastinum but it is rarely used in minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery. In this prospective trial, the practicability and security of spreadable video-assisted mediastinoscopic combined with laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (VAME) with video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) were compared.

METHODS

A total of 200 eligible patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were randomly divided into VAME or VATE groups. Early postoperative outcomes and lymph node dissection between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The operation time was significantly shorter (164.3 ± 47.0 min vs. 265.4 ± 47.2 min, P < 0.001), the number of dissected lymph nodes was less (15.8 ± 4.5 vs. 20.3 ± 6.5, P < 0.001), and the intraoperative blood loss was also significantly reduced (94.7 ± 56.7 mL vs. 184.4 ± 65.2 mL, P < 0.001) in the VAME compared to the VATE group, respectively. The incidence of pneumonia was lower (7% vs. 29%; P < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the VAME group compared to the VATE group (18.0 ± 7.6 days vs. 23.2 ± 7.2, P < 0.001, respectively). The chyle leak incidence appeared to be lower in the VAME group but statistical significance was not reached (1% vs. 4%; P = 0.369). There were no differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakages and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis between the groups. No 30-day mortality occurred in any of the cases.

CONCLUSION

VAME appears to be a practicable and secure method for esophagectomy but needs further proof of concept. Clinical registration number: Registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900022797.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Thoracoscopy-Assisted Esophagectomy vs Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Carcinoma Esophagus: a Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) was popularized to reduce the morbidity of esophagectomy. Thoracoscopy-assisted esophagectomy (TAE) offers esophageal dissection under magnified vision. This study compares the short-term morbidity and oncological outcome following TAE and THE for esophageal carcinoma.

METHODOLOGY

This is a prospective comparative (January 2017-May 2018) study between TAE and THE for >cT1bN1 esophageal carcinoma. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), responders and patients with stable diseases were subjected to surgery. Thoracoscopy in esophagectomy was performed in prone position. Follow-up duration was at least 4 weeks post-discharge.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients of esophageal carcinoma undergoing TAE (n = 18) or THE (n = 15) were included. Common locations of tumor were lower third of esophagus (72.7%) and esophagogastric junction (18.2%). Majority (73.3%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Median interval between NACRT and surgery was 13 weeks. The mean operating time was significantly more with TAE than THE (292.5 vs 207.33 min, p = 0.005). R0 resection rate in TAE was 83.3% compared with 66.7% in THE. There was no difference in the lymph node yield. There was non-significant trend towards lower incidence of major pulmonary complication (66.7% vs 80.0%), cardiac complications (27.8% vs 46.7%), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs 46.7%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (16.7% vs 20.0%), and overall major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (44.4% vs 66.7%) in TAE than THE. The chyle leak was observed more in TAE (16.7%) than THE (6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

TAE achieved higher R0 resection rate and better short-term morbidity than THE. Enrollment of small number of cases in the study precluded statistical significance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI registration no: CTRI/2018/05/013880) in 14-05-2018.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

Surgery is the mainstay of esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a major surgical trauma on a patient with high morbidity and mortality. The intent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is to decrease the degree of surgical trauma and perioperative morbidity associated with open surgery, and provide faster recovery and shorter hospital stay with the equivalent oncological outcome. It also allows for lesser pulmonary morbidity, less blood loss, less pain, and a better quality of life. MIE is safe and effective but has a steep learning curve with high technical expertise. Recently, it is increasingly accepted and adopted all over the globe. In this article, we discuss the safety, efficacy, short-term, and oncological outcomes of thoracoscopic- and laparoscopic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic surgery compared with open esophagectomy with a special focus on the Indian perspective.

Functional outcome after laparoscopic assisted gastric transposition including pyloric dilatation in long-gap esophageal atresia

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Among the options for esophageal replacement in long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA), gastric transposition (GT) is accessible for an endoscopic approach. Here we report a novel technique and functional results after laparoscopic-assisted gastric transposition (LAGT), including pyloric dilatation in patients with LGEA.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 14 children undergoing LAGT. Surgical steps included the release of the gastrostomy, transumbilical ante-situ section of the stomach including pyloric balloon-dilation, and laparoscopically controlled transhiatal retromediastinal blunt dissection followed by LAGT for cervical anastomosis to the proximal esophagus.

RESULTS

The median age at LAGT was 110 days (33-327 days), bodyweight 5.3 kg (3.1-8.3 kg). Operation time was 255 min (180-436 min); one conversion was necessary. The duration of ventilation was 4 days (1-14 days). Postpyloric feeding was started after 2 days, and oral feeding after 13 days. Complications were recurrent pleural effusion or pneumothorax and transient Horner syndrome or transient incomplete paresis of the recurrence nerve. After a median follow-up of 60 months (13-240 months), all children have a patent upper GI tract, show weight gain, and are fed without delayed gastric emptying, dumping, or reflux. Severe (n = 1) or mild (n = 2) anastomotic or pyloric (n = 5) stenosis was resolved with endoscopic dilatations.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcome after LAGT in patients with LGEA is good. The laparoscopic retromediastinal dissection preserves thoracal structures and increases patients' safety. The technique of pyloric dilatation might also prevent dumping syndrome.

TYPE OF STUDY

Case Series with no Comparison Group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: The first case report of a thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy done in the Caribbean

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy is one of the options in the armamentarium of a modern surgeon when faced with treating oesophageal cancer. Trinidad and Tobago has successfully treated a patient using this method. This case report adds to the rich surgical history in the Caribbean.

CASE PRESENTATION

Our patient presented with progressive dysphagia, and after being worked up was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer. He underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had a minimally invasive McKeown oesophagectomy done by a fellowship trained, advanced laparoscopic oesophageal and gastric surgeon.

CONCLUSION

The patient had an uneventful recovery and was tumor free with excellent quality of life at 4 years, showing that the Caribbean is keeping up with the rest of the surgical world.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

Surgical esophagectomy plays a crucial role in the curative and palliative treatment of esophageal cancer. Thereby, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly applied all over the world. Combining minimal invasiveness with improved possibilities for meticulous dissection, robot-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been implemented in many centers.

Purpose

This review focuses on the development of MIE as well as RAMIE and their value based on evidence in current literature.

Conclusion

Although MIE and RAMIE are highly complex procedures, they can be performed safely with improved postoperative outcome and equal oncological results compared with open esophagectomy (OE). RAMIE offers additional advantages regarding surgical dissection, lymphadenectomy, and extended indications for advanced tumors.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Use of vasopressors during esophagectomy is not associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak

Vasopressor use during esophagectomy has been reported to increase the risk of postoperative anastomotic leak and associated morbidity. We sought to assess the association between vasopressor use and fluid (crystalloid and colloid) administration and anastomotic leak following open esophagectomy. Patients who underwent open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were identified from a prospective institutional database. The primary outcome was postoperative anastomotic leak (any grade) and analyzed using logistic regression models. Postoperative anastomotic leak developed in 52 of 327 consecutive patients (16%) and was not significantly associated with vasopressor use or fluid administered in either univariable or multivariable analyses. Increasing body mass index was the only significant characteristic of both univariable (P = 0.004) and multivariable analyses associated with anastomotic leak (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09; P = 0.007). Of the 52 patients that developed an anastomotic leak, 12 (23%) were grade 1, 21 (40%) were grade 2 and 19 (37%) were grade 3. In our cohort, only body mass index, and not intraoperative vasopressor use and fluid administration, was significantly associated with increased odds of postoperative anastomotic leak following open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Current Issues in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Current status of esophageal cancer treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains one of the most common and aggressive diseases worldwide. This review discusses some debates in the modern management of the disease. Endoscopic procedures for early cancer (T1a−b) are now embedded in routine care and the challenge will be to more accurately select patients for endoscopic resection with or without adjuvant therapy. Perioperative multimodal therapies are associated with improved survival compared to surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, there is no global consensus on the optimal regimen. Furthermore, histological subtype (adenocarcinomavs. squamous cell cancer) plays a role in the choice for treatment. New studies are underway to resolve some issues. The extent of the lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The ideal operation balances between limiting surgical trauma and optimizing survival. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways are associated with decreased morbidity and faster recovery albeit there is no consensus yet what approach should be used. Finally, immune checkpoint inhibitors present promising preliminary results in the novel treatment of advanced or metastatic EC but their widespread application in clinical practice is still awaited.

A Technical Modification to the Circular Stapling Anastomosis Technique During Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Procedure

Background: The circular stapled (CS) technique with transoral placement of the anvil is commonly used to perform the esophagogastric anastomosis during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). The procedure is safe, efficient, and highly reproducible; however, the intersection between the circular plane of the stapler and the linear staple line of the esophageal stump can expose the anastomosis to the formation of dog-ears and, therefore, increase the risk of anastomotic leak (AL). We describe a simple modification of the CS technique that consists of folding the linear esophageal transection line with a stitch around the anvil shaft, to include the staple line in the resection during the EEA^™ firing. Methods: We prospectively collected data on a small group of patients who underwent MIE for cancer using our modified CS technique. Feasibility has been evaluated as the percentage of cases in which the modified anastomosis technique has been carried out successfully with the formation of a complete anastomotic ring. Safety has been defined as the absence of procedure-related complications. Results: MIE was performed in 10 patients using our modified CS technique. All the procedures were successfully completed with complete resection of the linear esophageal staple line and no intraoperative complications. Only one patient developed a postoperative AL that was only detected by barium swallow and did not cause any symptom or clinical sign. Conclusion: Our modified CS technique is feasible and did successfully prevent the occurrence of clinically relevant ALs in this small case series of patients.

Reliability and safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a retrospective study

Background

Thoracic surgeons have recognized the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, MIE for locally advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) is controversial. This study aimed to nvestigate and summarise the reliability and safety of MIE after NCRT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from January 2016 to January 2018, and compared them with patients who underwent MIE alone during the same period.

Results

In total, 107 patients were eligible for the study. Forty-four patients underwent MIE after NCRT (CRM), and 63 patients underwent MIE alone (MA). The surgical duration (253.59 ± 47.51 vs. 222.86 ± 42.86 min), intraoperative blood loss (164.55 ± 109.09 vs. 146.19 ± 112.89 ml), number of lymph nodes resected (18.36 ± 8.01 vs. 22.10 ± 12.03), duration of the postoperative hospital stay (12.84 ± 6.57 vs. 14.60 ± 8.48 days), postoperative intubation time (5.68 ± 3.08 vs. 6.54 ± 4.97 days), total incidence of complications (34.10% vs. 31.7%), and R0 resection rate (95.45% vs. 96.83%) had no significant difference. The incidence of arrhythmia was higher in CRM (P < 0.02). No mortality occurred postoperatively within 30 days in either group.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a feasible, safe, and beneficial for postoperative recovery of patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13019-019-0920-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Minimally invasive and robotic surgery in the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer

Minimally invasive surgery provides for the treatment of esophagogastric junction tumors under safe conditions, reducing respiratory and abdominal wall complications. Recovery is improved, while maintaining the oncological principles of surgery to obtain an optimal long-term outcome. It is important to have a sufficient volume of activity to progress along the learning curve with close expert supervision in order to guarantee R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy. Minimal invasiveness ought not become an objective in itself. Should total gastrectomy be performed, the risk of a positive proximal margin makes intraoperative biopsy compulsory, without ruling out a primary open approach. Meanwhile, minimally invasive esophagectomy has been gaining ground. Its main difficulty, the intrathoracic anastomosis, can be safely carried out either with a mechanical side-to-side suture or a robot-assisted manual suture, thanks to the 3-D vision and versatility of the instruments.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

Management of Locally Advanced and Metastatic Esophageal Cancer in the Older Population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to synthesise the current literature on the management of early-stage and metastatic esophageal cancers, focusing on the older population. In particular, we aim to dissect out the elderly-specific data from the relevant trials and to discuss the issues unique to this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

While surgery is the curative modality in esophageal malignancies, the CROSS, MAGIC and FLOT trials demonstrate a clear advantage to neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy). These trials, however, included few elderly patients. There is a similar lack of elderly-specific data in the metastatic setting. Esophageal malignancies remain highly lethal with increasing incidence with age. Despite the relative lack of elderly-specific data, the fit older population appear to similarly benefit from multimodal therapy in early-stage and palliative therapy in metastatic disease.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has become the preferred approach for invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma because it can speed recovery and enhance patient's quality of life. Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques have been described during the last two decades. Preoperative staging, anatomy and physiological patient's status, comorbidity, and experience of the surgical team should drive the choice of the surgical approach. The trans-thoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, either hybrid or totally minimal invasive, remains the preferred approach in these patients. Lymph node yield and short-term clinical outcomes have proven similar to open surgery, while quality of life appears improved. To establish a minimally invasive esophagectomy program, a steep learning curve and a multidisciplinary approach are required in order to provide optimal staging, personalized therapy, and adequate perioperative care. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma will continue to expand in synergy with enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

A Population-based Study on Lymph Node Retrieval in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

BACKGROUND

For esophageal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) is often used as a quality indicator. The aim of this study is to analyze the number of retrieved LNs in The Netherlands, assess factors associated with LN yield, and explore the association with short-term outcomes. This is a population-based study on lymph node retrieval in patients with esophageal cancer, presenting results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

STUDY DESIGN

For this retrospective national cohort study, patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved LNs. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to test for association with ≥ 15 LNs.

PATIENTS AND RESULTS

3970 patients were included. Between 2011 and 2016, the median number of LNs increased from 15 to 20. Factors independently associated with ≥ 15 LNs were: 0-10 kg preoperative weight loss (versus: unknown weight loss, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.71 [0.57-0.88]), Charlson score 0 (versus: Charlson score 2: 0.76 [0.63-0.92]), cN2 category (reference: cN0, 1.32 [1.05-1.65]), no neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (reference: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 1.73 [1.29-2.32] and 2.15 [1.54-3.01]), minimally invasive transthoracic (reference: open transthoracic, 1.46 [1.15-1.85]), open transthoracic (versus open and minimally invasive transhiatal, 0.29 [0.23-0.36] and 0.43 [0.32-0.59]), hospital volume of 26-50 or > 50 resections/year (reference: 0-25, 1.94 [1.55-2.42] and 3.01 [2.36-3.83]), and year of surgery [reference: 2011, odds ratios (ORs) 1.48, 1.53, 2.28, 2.44, 2.54]. There was no association of ≥ 15 LNs with short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of LNs retrieved increased between 2011 and 2016. Weight loss, Charlson score, cN category, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, year of resection, and hospital volume were all associated with increased LN yield. Retrieval of ≥ 15 LNs was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity/mortality.

Optimized thoracoport design for the thoracoscopic procedure during minimally invasive esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has several benefits as an effective alternative treatment for esophageal cancer. The three-phase esophageal resection may be the most popular approach to esophagectomy. Numerous thoracoport designs are available for the thoracoscopic procedure. The present study aims to contribute a distinctive three-port technique that is designed to minimize surgical trauma and facilitate operation during the thoracoscopic procedure. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the details of the port design and each operation step. Based on our practical experience, the rational combination of the port design and instrument usage of the three-port technique makes the thorascopic procedure more convenient.